Paper ID #12508

Exploring the Impact of Peer-Generated Screencast Tutorials on Computer-Aided Design Education

Dr. Dongdong Zhang, Prairie View A&M University

Dongdong Zhang is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at thePrairie View A&M University. He graduated from University of Missouri-Columbia with a Ph.D. degreein Mechanical Engineering. His research interests include: Micro- and Nano-Fiber Reinforced Compos-ites Processing Simulation, Transport Phenomenon in Polymer Composites Processing; Finite ElementAnalysis (FEA), Computational and Numerical Algorithms; Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing(CAD/CAM); Engineering Education

Dr. Xiaobo Peng, Prairie View A&M UniversityDr. Bugrahan Yalvac, Texas A&M University

Bugrahan Yalvac is an associate professor of science and engineering education in the Department ofTeaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University, College Station. He received his Ph.D. inscience education at the Pennsylvania State University in 2005. Prior to his current position, he workedas a learning scientist for the VaNTH Engineering Research Center at Northwestern University for threeyears. Yalvac’s research is in STEM education, 21st century skills, and design and evaluation of learningenvironments informed by the How People Learn framework.

Dr. Deniz Eseryel, North Carolina State University

Deniz Eseryel joined North Carolina State University as a Chancellor’s Faculty Excellence Program clus-ter hire in the Digital Transformation of Education. She is an Associate Professor in the Department ofCurriculum, Instruction, and Counselor Education specializing in Digital Learning and Teaching. Sheis also a Senior Research Fellow at the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. The important butlittle understood question that has motivated her program of research is: How can we effectively and ef-ficiently promote cyberlearning in complex knowledge domains such as STEM (science, technology, en-gineering and mathematics)? Towards this direction, she (1) investigates the development of higher-orderthinking and complex problem-solving competencies following a comprehensive framework that includescognition, metacognition, cognitive regulation, motivation, emotion, and epistemic beliefs; (2) developsinnovative assessment methods that can benchmark progress of learning and the development of com-plex problem-solving competencies; (3) develops new and effective approaches to design state-of-the-artdigital learning environments (such as intelligent tutoring, system dynamics modeling, simulations, vir-tual reality, and digital games) to facilitate complex problem-solving competencies; and (4) investigateseffective ways to prepare teachers and administrators for digital transformation of education to supporteffective integration and seamless adoption of advanced learning technologies into education. In additionto her work focusing on STEM learning in K-20 educational settings, her research was also carried outin professional contexts including army, aircraft maintenance, air-traffic control, emergency response, en-vironmental sciences, climate change, medical education, instructional design, architecture, constructionscience, mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, and systems engineering.

Uzair Nadeem, Prairie View A&M University

I am a junior mechanical engineer at Prairie View A&M University. I currently tutor in UGS NX 7.5,a CAD based class that implements both hand and computer based drafting. My main duty is to lecturethe CAD section of the class known as Intro to Mechanical Drawing along with the tutoring or any otherrelated duties that entail.

Mr. Atiq Islam, Prairie View A&M University

I was born and raised in Houston Texas. I have worked in the professional field for five years as aenvironmental technician at Southern Union. I am also currently attending Prairie View A&M Universityto pursue a Mechanical Engineering degree

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2015

Page 26.737.1

Paper ID #12508

Deron Arceneaux , Prairie View A&M University

My name is Deron Arceneaux; I am a sophomore at Prairie View A&M University. I am a member of theNational Society of Black Engineers, and a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Inthese organizations I participated in many community service events, I am a very active member in theseorganizations. I am also a teachers assistant for the Mechanical Engineering Drawing I, in this class weteach NX 7.5 CAD software.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2015

Page 26.737.2

Exploring the Impact of Peer-Generated Screencast Tutorials on

Computer-Aided Design Education

Abstract

This paper presents the design strategies of an engineering education research project funded

by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and discusses the preliminary findings. Study

participants were the students who enrolled in the "Mechanical Engineering Drawing" course

and learned about computer-aided design (CAD). We grouped students into two sections as

control section versus experimental section. Control group students received a traditional and

teacher-centered instruction. The screencast tutorials were provided to them by their instructors.

In the experimental section, students designed their own screencast tutorials. They shared the

tutorials with one another on the Internet. They reviewed and commented each other’s tutorials.

This activity was student-centered. We captured students’ attitudes towards engineering and their

life-long learning skills before and after the semester, and their CAD knowledge at the end of the

semester. This is the first implementation of the research project and our preliminary findings are

discussed in this paper.

Introduction

Emerging technologies have changed the way that people teach and learn knowledge.

―Screencast‖ in this paper will be defined as a digitally recorded playback of a computer screen

output, which often contains audio narration to visually present procedural information. It is a

unique E-learning tool1. It is cost-effective and user-friendly. It helps generate multimedia

instruction that is authentic, situated, and motivating and can also be applied in various

educational settings1 (e.g., the classroom, self-paced environment, collaborative learning

environment, etc.). Instructors can develop screencasts to deliver CAD software tutorials. The

user-friendly and cost-effective features of the screencasts allow the course instructors to

frequently update the learning material and keep up with the pace of the software evolution.

Generating a screencast for CAD instruction requires the same amount of time as preparing a

class demonstration because the screencast simultaneously captures the users' actions on the

computer screen. The screencast videos are typically extracted in formats that are compatible

with other players and world-wide-web browsers. The screencasts can be easily shared on the

Internet.

Screencasts have been used as educational tools in a variety of disciplines, for example,

statistics2, engineering

3,4,5,6, and nursing

7. Research has shown that teaching with screencasts has

many benefits. Learners perceive the screencast tutorials to be more explicit and user-friendly

than the static versions of instruction8,9

. Screencasts are considered to be more effective learning

tools than written notes or textbook exercises because they are animated and include audio. For

visual and auditory learners, screencast tutorials are more preferable instructional tools.

Screencasts also have the advantage of more user control and autonomy. The learner can stop,

rewind, and replay a screencast as many times as she wants and move with her own pace. She

can watch the screencast at any location and time on a world-wide-web browser that can be on a

personal computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. The initial learning is fast since students do not

spend time in interpreting the steps and avoid the laborious trial-and-error process. Since a

Page 26.737.3

student learns by observing the desired behavior of an expert on the screencast, it aids learners

with low self-efficacy in exploring the demonstrated behaviors1.

Teaching how to use CAD software with the screencasts has additional benefits. The learners

can learn about a key technique in CAD by simply watching the screencast. An audio

explanation behind the screencast can explain how and why the key technique is important. The

CAD screencasts are sustainable. Once they are prepared, they require minimum maintenance

and could be used by future users. The CAD software are updated quite frequently. Creating

updated screencast tutorials on the most recent CAD software would require less time and fewer

resources than creating written tutorials or handouts. In other words, the screencast tutorials can

help students and instructors keep pace with the software upgrades.

In most studies reported in the literature, instructors generated the CAD screencasts and then

distributed them to the students. The students watched the CAD screencasts and learned about

the CAD software techniques by following the directions. Even though the instructor-generated

CAD screencasts have both visual and verbal stimuli, this conventional use of the CAD

screencasts in learning has some disadvantages. The students are still kept passive in the learning

process and they simply receive the provided instruction. They do not participate in designing

the material that they learn. The learner may memorize the steps presented and copy them to the

application environment without meaningfully understanding the task10

. Learners may become

less activated and engaged, which will undermine the learning outcomes11

. Therefore, the

teaching method where the instructors generate the screencasts is not considered learner-

centered12

.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this NSF funded engineering education project is to improve undergraduate

engineering students’ CAD learning and help them develop life-long learning skills and positive

attitudes towards engineering by assigning students active roles to generate and share the

screencasts with one another. In this work, students generate CAD screencast tutorials, record the

supporting audios, share the videos with their peers, and provide feedback to each other’s

screencast. When students actively participate in generating the screencasts, they will develop

the feelings of belonging and ownership about the knowledge that they are learning. When

student learn from their peers, they may develop the habits of life-long learning skills that

involve an understanding that one can always learn new things by reviewing others’ instructions

or tutorials. In the meantime, students' altitudes towards engineering could improve due to their

active involvement in the learning activities in engineering.

Study Rationale

Life-long learning rationale: One purpose of this project is to enhance students' life-long

learning skills. When students know that the material they generate will be used by their peers,

they will be more willing to put extra efforts in their work and do their best. Commenting on

each other’s screencast and reviewing these comments enhance their engagement in their design

tasks. Peer-to-peer learning will be fostered and encouraged, and the idea of conversing new

things with peers is developed. This is more of an authentic learning activity than simply

Page 26.737.4

learning the material from an instructor-generated screencast. Students who are recording the

audios along with their screenshots will be meta-cognitively involved in their tasks. This will

help improve students’ meta-cognitive skills partly because they will be required to think aloud

as they record the supporting audios. Students creating the screencasts will take both an

instructor role and a learner role at the same time. They will have to think from multiple

perspectives. These different role-taking strategies will improve students’ meta-cognition and

their comprehension of the CAD tools. The students, who create screencasts and learn from

viewing their peers’ screencasts in the class, will know that they can always learn new

knowledge similarly in their future lives. Realizing that your peers have the potential to teach

you new knowledge and being aware of available resources are critical for life-long learning

skills. Students who view the peer-generated screencasts and give feedbacks to the designer

would need to make clear and reasonable judgments in their explanation, which in turn, helps to

develop critical thinking skills. In addition, students will share different ways of making the

same CAD models in their tutorials, which may trigger students' curiosity for solving problems

using different methods.

Engineering attitude rationale: We anticipate that experimental student's attitudes towards

engineering will improve due to the implemented project’s activities. The collaboration among

the group members will help students realize the importance of team-work and information

sharing in engineering. In the screencast tutorials, students make efforts to provide clear and

instructive video tutorials, which may help them understand the importance of oral

communication and presentation skills in engineering beside the problem solving skills. In the

meantime, the practical attribute of this project might change students' original impression that

engineers only deal with theory and solve complex mathematical problems. But instead,

engineering could be an interesting and fun career.

Study Methods

This paper presents our first implementation of the project activates. We anticipate collecting

data over the next three years with more than hundred student participants. The project was first

implemented in a freshman "Mechanical Engineering Drawing" class offered in Mechanical

Engineering Department at Prairie View A&M University in Fall 2014. The course has been

designed to teach students engineering graphics and three-dimensional (3D) modeling using

CAD software. This course provides students practical experience on how to use the CAD

software named NX in 3D modeling and drafting. NX license has a "borrowing-license" option.

Each student in the class can obtain an NX borrowing-license, which allows students to use NX

on their personal computers over the semester. Students return the license after they complete the

course. The Techsmith's Snagit software is used as the tool to make the screencasts in this

project. Snagit supports long-time video capturing and MPEG-4 video format, which is

compatible with many devices, including PCs, tablets, and smart phones13

. Each student in the

class was provided a Snagit software license so that they can install the software on their

personal computers. By using Snagit, all the actions on computer screen plus the audio can be

recorded as a screencast. In this project, an online course management system named Ecourses is

used for the students to make and post their screencast videos and provide feedback. Ecourses is

the web-based course management platform used by the university to deliver online courses and Page 26.737.5

provide web-based resources for face-to-face courses. Ecourses offers a "forum" function, in

which students can share the screencast files and provide comments to each other.

We grouped the students into two sections. One was designated as the control section and the

other was designated as the experimental section. Students in the control section received

traditional instruction. In the experimental section, students were asked to generate screencasts

and share them with each other. Students in the experimental section were divided into several

small study groups. Typically, each small group included five or six students. All project

activities were assigned in a group format. Our purpose has been to promote student

collaboration and peer-to-peer mentoring among the group members. Below, we explain the

exercises that students completed.

Screencast Exercises

Three screencast homework were assigned to students in the experimental section. The first

homework was designed for students to be familiar with Snagit software and Ecourses platform.

Every student made a screencast of the modeling procedure of a simple model in Figure 1(a),

and posted it on Ecourses. The second and third screencast homework with the models shown in

Figure 1(b) and 1(c) were designed for students to work in groups.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Screencast homework models

In Fall 2014, students in the experimental section were divided into nine groups. Each group

included about six students. Among these six students, each were assigned with one of the two

tags: "tag A" for generating a screencast and "tag B" for providing comments. Students with

different tags took turns in the activities they completed. For example, in the second screencast

homework, students with tag A generated and posted their screencasts, while students with tag B

viewed the screencasts and provided feedback to the student with tag A. This process is visually

represented in Figure 2. Then in the third homework, the students switched the roles.

Page 26.737.6

Figure 2.Tasks for the students with different tags in the second screencast homework

In order to balance the workload between the control and experimental sections, three

modeling assignments as seen in Figure 1 were also given to students in the control section, but

they did not generate and shared screencasts with one another.

Research instruments and data collection

In order to capture the effect of the screencast tutorial exercises on students’ learning

outcomes, we used four instruments: a life-long learning scale, an engineering attitude survey, a

CAD knowledge exam, and an exit project survey. We received approval from the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) at the university to conduct this study. The students who were enrolled in

the CAD course in Fall 2014 were invited to participate in the research. Students who

volunteered participating provided their signed consent. All students enrolled in the course were

asked to complete the class activities, but we only analyzed the data generated by the students

who provided their consent. The research instruments are presented as follows.

Life-long learning scale and engineering attitude survey: We have chosen to use a life-long

learning (LLL) scale designed by Wielkiewicz and Sinner14 to capture students’ intent to learn

from others in contexts other than a school environment. The LLL scale included sixteen

questions with a five-point scale (see Appendix for the list of the items). An engineering attitude

(EA) survey developed by Robinson et al.15 was used to capture students’ attitudes towards

engineering. The EA survey included twenty-five items with a six-point scale (see Appendix for

the list of the items). EA survey and LLL scale were administered at the beginning and at the end

of the semester to capture the changes in students’ attitudes towards engineering and their life-

long learning tendencies. These two surveys were given to students in both control and

experimental sections.

Final exam: A final exam was given to students in both control and experimental sections at

the end of the semester. It was designed to evaluate students' modeling skills and CAD

knowledge. Students were given four modeling problems with the same degree of difficulty. The

grade for each student was recorded and a comparison was made between the control and

experimental sections to evaluate the effect of the project activities on students’ CAD knowledge

and modeling skills.

Exit project survey: To explore students’ experiences with the screencast activities in the

experimental section, we designed an exit project survey (see Appendix for the list of the items).

Page 26.737.7

We administered the project survey at the end of the semester for the students in the

experimental section only. The survey responses are used to evaluate the project activities and

advance the research design in the upcoming semesters.

Results and Discussion

The project activities were first implemented in the "Mechanical Engineering Drawing" class

in Fall 2014. There were 72 students in the research project, with 23 students in the control

section and 49 students in the experimental section. The screencast homework and project survey

were only assigned to the students in the experimental section, while the CAD modeling exam,

LLL survey and EA survey were given to students in both control and experimental sections. Not

all 72 participants completed all pre and post LLL scales and EA surveys. The number of

participants in each exercise and the results of the analyses are specified as follows.

Screencast homework

The first screencast homework was designed for students to learn how to make screencasts

using Snagit software and how to share videos and comments using Ecourses. In the second and

third homework, students made screencast, shared their video tutorials, and added comments.

The snapshots of one student's screencast video are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Snapshots of a student's screencast video

Other students viewed the screencasts and provided their comments. Two of the comments

made by students are presented in Table 1. These comments reveal that students were actively

involved in viewing and evaluating the screencasts that their peers generated. Most comments

were detailed and valuable. There were two advantages of adding and sharing comments: (1)

Students viewing the screencasts could think about the pros and cons of the screencasts and be

aware of such problems in their own screencasts, and (2) students generating the screencasts

could read the comments and improve the quality of their future screencasts.

Table 1.Examples of the comments made by the students

Comment 1 You did so well! I really do like your video. What makes me happy about it is

the length because most times (at least for me) when I’m looking for a tutorial

video online I tend to look for the shortest one because I want to learn it quickly

and I only have so much time. From what I have learned so far in college, time

Page 26.737.8

is a big factor especially once you enter the work force. Whoever is hiring you

may prefer someone who can get things done at a faster pace if that makes

sense. Back to your video, it’s real good as far as directions. I knew exactly

what you were explaining as it was easy to follow. I’m not entirely sure if a

person new to NX would follow it as easily but I’m pretty sure that someone

aware of how NX works and has used it before would. One more thing, next

time check if you're too close to the microphone because there were times when

your breathing was loud (I'm not sure how to describe it...or maybe it was

something else) and I had to turn my volume down. Overall really great!

Comment 2 Giving a visual representation of the object at the beginning of the video was a

great start. This allows the individual watching the video to have a general idea

of what he will be designing. The instructor took his time explaining the

different methods used to create the model. The instructor took his time

explaining in detail what inferred dimensions are and what the dimensions of

his drawing are. Hiding the sketch lines as he goes was very helpful, showing

me distinctly what he was selecting. After completing each portion, the

instructor would rotate the image so the viewer would have a good idea of what

was done. Overall, the video was great and instructive, making it easy to follow

and recreate the drawing.

Life-long learning scale and engineering attitude survey

All student participants (N=72) completed a demographic questionnaire at the beginning of

the semester. The questionnaire asked students to indicate their ethnicity, sex, major, and

whether or not they are first-generation-college students in their family. Students completed the

life-long learning scale and engineering attitude survey two times: once at the beginning of the

semester and once at the end of the semester. Out of 72 participants, 57 students completed all

surveys (i.e., pre and post LLL scales and EA surveys), with 17 students in the control section

and 40 students in the experimental section. Fifteen students missed completing one or more of

the pre LLL scale, post LLL scale, pre EA scale, or post EA survey. Therefore, we excluded the

data for these 15 students in the analyses of the LLL scale and EA survey. LLL scale has

included 16 Likert-scale items on a five-point scale (Always or daily =5, Often =4, Sometimes =

3, Rarely =2, Never = 1). All items in the LLL scale were positive (see Appendix for the LLL

scale items). EA survey included 25 Likert-scale items on a six-point scale (Very strongly agree

=6, Strongly Agree =5, Agree =4, Disagree =3, Strongly Disagree =2, Very Strongly Disagree

=1). Not all items in the EA survey were positive (see Appendix for the EA survey items). We

calculated students’ mean scores in all pre and post surveys. When the items were negative, we

reversed students’ responses (e.g., Very Strongly Agree= 1, and Very Strongly Disagree= 6 in

the negative EA survey). Next, each student’s gain scores were computed in both surveys by

subtracting the pre score from the post score (e.g. gain LLL score = post LLL score – pre LLL

score and gain EA score = post EA score – pre EA score). The mean scores and the standard

deviations are represented in Table 2 and Table 3, with the control section and experimental

section denoted as the subscripts "Cnt" and "Exp," respectively. The standard deviation is

denoted as "SD".

Page 26.737.9

In the LLL scale, analyses were made to compare the pre, post, and gain scores of the mean

values for the control and experimental sections. Only one statistically significant difference

were found. Control session (NCnt=17) performed better than experimental session (NExp=40) in

the post LLL scale (MCnt =3.92, MExp =3.59, t =-2.23, p<0.05), as seen in Table 2. Levene’s test

for unequal variances rejected that group variances were different (F=.42, p=.52). Because of the

uneven number of participants in each session, we also ran non-parametric Wilcoxon test and

found the same results (Z =1.98, p<0.05, r=.26).

When the pre LLL scores and post LLL scores were compared for each section separately by

running two independent t-tests, no difference was observed. In other words, pre LLL scale

responses from students in the control section (MCnt =3.80) were not significantly different from

those in the post LLL scale (MCnt =3.92) (t (16)=1.97, p=0.06). Similarly, the pre LLL scale

responses from students in the experimental section (MExp =3.55) were not significantly different

from those in the post LLL scale (MExp =3.59) (t (39)=.67, p=0.5).

Table 2.The mean scores of the students’ responses to the LLL scale

Number of

Students

Pre LLL

Score Means

(SD)

Post LLL

Score Means

(SD)

Gain Score

for the LLL

Scale (SD)

Control Section 17 (2 female) 3.80 (0.41) 3.92 (0.47)* 0.12 (0.24)

Experimental Section 40 (11 female) 3.55 (0.49) 3.59 (0.57)* 0.04 (0.40)

* (MCnt=3.92, MExp=3.59, t =-2.23, p<0.05).

In the EA survey, none of the mean values in Table 3 were significantly different from each

other. Post EA scores of students in the control section (MCnt =3.53) were not significantly

different from their pre EA scores (MCnt =3.61) (t (16)=.756, p=.46). Similarly, post EA scores of

students in the experimental section (MExp =3.57) were not significantly different from their pre

EA scores (MExp =3.59) (t (39)= .69, p=0.5).

Table 3.Mean scores of the students’ responses to the engineering attitude (EA) survey

Number of

Students

Pre EA Score

Means (SD)

Post EA

Score Means

(SD)

Gain Score

for the EA

Survey (SD)

Control Section 17 (2 female) 3.61 (0.30) 3.53 (0.29) -0.08 (0.08)

Experimental Section 40 (11 female) 3.59 (0.19) 3.57 (0.25) -0.02 (0.05)

Findings indicate that students’ attitudes towards engineering as captured by the EA survey

and their life-long learning skills as captured by the LLL scale were not significantly improved

through the project activities. This finding is contradictory to our hypotheses. It is possible that

these results were caused by the low number of student participants in the control and

Page 26.737.10

experimental sections. The research team will evaluate and improve the instructional design

strategies implemented in this project and continue collecting data for both experimental and

control sections.

Final exam

All 72 students attended the final exam. Table 4 presents the mean scores of the students’

final exam for each section. The mean value of all students’ final exam scores was 75.5 that was

out of 100 and with a standard deviation of 23.18.

When students’ final exam scores were analyzed with respect to their ethnicities, gender, and

first generation college student status, no statistically difference was found between the two

sections. In other words, students’ ethnicity, their sexes, and their first generation statuses were

not any of the predictable variables for their final exam scores.

Table 4.Data from students’ final exams

Treatment Type Number of Students Final Exam Means Final Exam SD

Control Section 23 70.26 24.42

Experimental Section 49 77.96 20.09

Total: 72 75.5 23.18

When the mean scores of the students were compared between the control and experimental

sections (NCnt= 23, NExp= 49), no statistically significant difference was found at the p<0.05 level

(MCnt=70.26, SDCnt = 24.42; MExp=77.96, SDExp=20.09, (F(1, 70) = 1.74, p= .19). Because the

section sizes were different and the section variances were unequal as indicated by Levene’s test

(F= 5.45, p=.02), we ran Wilcoxon test that assumes unequal variances for the same comparison

(Z=.68, p=.49 , r=.08). The result indicates that the sections were not statistically different from

each other.

Exit project survey

In order to improve the quality of the future exercises of this project, we administered an exit

survey with the students who completed the screencast exercises in the experimental section. The

exit project survey included 13 questions (see Appendix for the exit project survey items).

Question 2 through 8 addressed students’ evaluation of the screencast exercises. Students rated

their responses on a scale of three: 1 indicating a response of "not at all," 2 indicating a response

of "a little," and 3 indicating a response of "a lot." The project survey data are presented in Table

5. The majority of the participants who installed NX in their personal computers (81.3%)

mentioned that their learning has improved "a lot." Forty percent of the students reported that

screencast exercises improved their learning of NX software and engineering drawing/modeling

"a lot" and more than 45% students reported "a little." While exploring the help of reading and

commenting on each other’s screencast videos, the results indicated that more than 86% students

found it "a lot" or "a little" useful to learn modeling techniques by making and reading

Page 26.737.11

comments. When the participants were asked about the easiness of the Ecourses platform, about

70% of students found it very easy to use. Finally, the effectiveness of the Ecourses platform for

students’ learning in CAD was rated mostly as "a little" followed by "a lot." Students' rating for

each item is tabulated in Table 5.

Table 5. Exit project survey responses for Questions 2 through 8

Questions A lot (%) A little (%) Not at all (%)

Did installing NX on your computer improve

your learning? 81.3 12.5 6.3

Did the screencast exercises help you learn the

NX software? 42.2 46.7 11.1

Did the screencast exercises help you learn the

engineering drawing and modeling? 44.4 48.9 6.7

Did commenting to others' screencast videos

help your learning of modeling techniques? 26.7 51.1 22.2

Did reading your group members' comments on

your screencast videos help your learning of

modeling techniques?

40.0 46.7 13.3

Was the Ecourses platform easy to use? 68.9 26.7 4.4

Was the Ecourses platform effective for your

learning in CAD? 33.3 55.6 11.1

The last five questions in the project survey explored students’ experiences about what they

liked and didn’t like in the exercises, what they learned during the screencast tutorial exercises or

from their peers, and what challenges or difficulties they had. One of the most frequent responses

given by the participants was how they liked and learned to do different ways for the screencast

tutorial. They explicated that they did like to work with their peers because it made it easier for

them to understand the exercises. In general, the responses indicated that the experimental group

participants liked and learned through the screencast tutorial exercises.

Specifically, Question 9 asked participants what they liked most about the screencast

exercises. Out of 49 students, 11 participants used the term "different" for learning the same

models from their peers. Participants tended to mention that the screencast exercises gave them

the ability to see "how others approached the problems in different ways." When the participants

were asked about the challenges or difficulties they had in the screencast exercises with Question

10, most commonly stated the difficulty was about the audio. Thirteen participants noted that

they "had audio difficulties" as they were recording their voice because they preferred "a quiet

place to record video." Question 11 asked the participants what they learned as they generated

the screencast tutorials. The participants stated the importance of peers' work in their learning.

Thirteen participants emphasized that they "learned how to do the project better while talking

about how to do it to others." When the participants were asked what they learned from their

peers' screencast tutorials with Question 12, twenty-one participants used the term "different" in

their responses, for example, "prefer to make different models" and "learn alternate forms of

developing and designing different models." Question 13 asked for participants’

Page 26.737.12

recommendations to improve the screencast exercises for future students. Eight students included

"microphone" in their responses. They had difficulties in hearing the voice in the screencast, as

they noted "microphone always muffles the voice" in their answers. Four participants found the

screencast exercises "good the way it is," and another three participants recommended that

screencast exercises could be "more challenging" or "make the objects harder to draw." Four of

the participants recommended to "practice the model a few times so that it would be easier and

more effective" "before they do a screencast."

Conclusion and Future Work

This is our first implementation of the project activities. This paper discussed the use of a

learner-centered instructional method. Instead of using instructor-generated screencast tutorials,

students were asked to generate screencasts of the CAD modeling procedures and share them

with each other in groups. They provided feedback to each other’s screencasts and had the

opportunity to reflect upon their own screencast design. Different from the traditional and

teacher-centered instruction, students in the experimental section took the lead to create their

learning materials and shared them with their peers. They developed the feelings of belonging

and ownership as they created these screencasts. Students were actively involved in the

screencast-making process and motivated to learn. They also received timely feedback from

other students. Students learned from each other and taught each other.

In this paper, we discussed the project activities and presented the preliminary results of the

first implementation of the project design in Fall 2014. Preliminary results showed that the

project activities had some improvement on the students’ final exams, yet the differences were

not found statistically significant. When we compared the students’ responses to the LLL scale

and EA survey, we did not find statistically significant results.

The authors will improve the project design and collect more data in the upcoming semesters.

The long-term goal is to establish a cyberlearning environment, in which students teach each

other new knowledge and skills. Specifically, more screencast exercises will be given to students

in each semester. Since Fall 2014 was the first semester to implement the project activities, only

three screencast exercises were assigned to students. We will increase the number of screencast

tutorial exercises in the upcoming semesters and evaluate the effect of those activities on the

same learning outcomes. We will design additional activities to promote the collaboration and

communication among students so as to create a mutual learning environment. Finally, the

questions of life-long learning scale, engineering altitude survey and exit project survey will be

re-examined and might be modified to comprehensively evaluate the effect of the student-

centered instructional method.

Acknowledgement

This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under HRD Grant

Number1435073. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented are those

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Page 26.737.13

References

1. Palaigeorgiou, G. and Despotakis, T., 2010, ―Known and Unknown Weaknesses in Software Animated

Demonstrations (Screencasts): A Study in Self-Paced Learning Settings,‖ Journal of Information Technology

Education: Research, 9(1), pp. 81-98.

2. Lloyd, S. and Robertson, C. L., 2012, ―Screencast Tutorials Enhance Student Learning of Statistics‖, Teaching

of Psychology, 39(1), pp.67-71.

3. De Grazia, J. L., Falconer, J. L., Nicodemus, G., and Medline, W., 2012, ―Incorporating Screencasts into

Chemical Engineering Courses,‖ in the Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference, AC 2012-5025.

4. Folkestad, J. E. and De Miranda, M. A., 2001, ―Impact of Screen-Capture Based Instruction on Student

Comprehension of Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software Principles,‖ Journal of Industrial Technology,

18(1), pp. 2-7.

5. Hardaker, C. and Rushin, G., 2012, ―Development and Evaluation of the Use of Screen casts as a Supplement to

Computer Aided Design Teaching in Fashion and Textiles,‖ Networks, 18.

6. Pinder-Grove, T., Green, K.R., and Millunchick, J., 2011, ―The Efficacy of Screencasts to Address the Diverse

Academic Needs of Students in a Large Lecture Course,‖ Advances in Engineering Education, American

Society for Engineering Education, Winter 2011, pp.1-28.

7. Phillips, J.M. and Billings, D.M., 2007, ―Using Webcasts for Continuing Education in Nursing,‖ Journal of

Continuing Education in Nursing, 38(4), pp.152-153.

8. de Souza, J.M.B. and Dyson, M., 2008, ―Are Animated Demonstrations the Clearest and Most Comfortable

Way to Communicate on-Screen Instructions?‖ Information Design Journal, 16(2), pp. 107-124.

9. Despotakis, T., Palaigeorgiou, G., and Tsoukalas, I., 2007, ―Students’ Attitudes Towards Animated

Demonstrations as Computer Learning Tools,‖ Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 196-205.

10. Atlas, R., Cornett, L., Lane, D. M., and Napier, H. A., 1997, ―The Use of Animation in Software Training:

Pitfalls and Benefits,‖ In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace:

applications of psychological research, Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp.281-302.

11. Ertelt, A., Renkl, A., and Spada, H., 2006, ―Making a Difference – Exploiting the Full Potential of

Instructionally Designed on-Screen Videos,‖ in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning

Sciences, pp. 154-160.

12. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R., 2000, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School

(2nd Edition). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

13. Richardson, I. E., 2004, ―H. 264 and MPEG-4 video compression: video coding for next-generation

multimedia,‖ John Wiley & Sons.

14. Wielkiewicz, R. M. and Sinner, A. S., 2010, ―A Life-Long Learning Scale for Student Development Research

and Evaluation,‖ Personal communication held on August 2010.

15. Robinson, M., Fadali, M. S., Carr, J., and Maddux, C., 1999, ―Engineering Principles for High School

Students,‖ in the proceedings of the 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Nov 10-13, San Juan,

Puerto Rico.

Page 26.737.14

Appendix

DemographicQuestions

1. Your name

2. Section

3. Ethnicity

4. Gender

5. First generation college student status

6. Your major

Life-long Learning Scale

(By Wielkiewicz& Sinner14

, Personal Communications):

The scale items measure the extent to which the person’s behavior reflects’ positive attitude

toward learning, curiosity, and critical thinking.

1. I enjoy intellectual challenges.

2. I read for the sake of new learning.

3. I converse with others about new things I have learned.

4. I like to analyze problems and issues in depth.

5. I see myself as a life-long learner.

6. My regular activities involve reading.

7. My regular activities involve writing.

8. I am a self-motivated learner.

9. I browse libraries or bookstores for interesting books or magazines.

10. I make interesting contributions to discussions in my classes, at work, or with friends.

11. My activities involve critical thinking.

12. I read for pleasure or entertainment.

13. I am curious about many things.

14. I pursue a wide range of learning interests.

15. I like to learn new things.

16. I do a lot of reading that is not required for my classes or job.

Copyright 2010 by Richard M. Wielkiewicz: May be used for research without permission. Each

item is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often, and 5 =

Always or Daily.

Engineering Attitude Scale

(By Robinson et al.15

, 1999)

Cited in M. S. Fadali, N. Henderson, J. Johnson, J. Mortensen, and J. McGough, ―On-line

engineering mathematics testing and assessment‖, 31thASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education

Conference, Reno NV, Oct. 2001, NSF grant number DUE 9980687, Published in M. Robinson,

Page 26.737.15

M. S. Fadali, J. Carr, C. Maddux, "Engineering Principles for High School Students", Frontiers

in Education, San Juan Puerto Rico, Nov. 1999, NSF DUE grant number 1970638.

1. Most engineers have poor social skills.

*2. Engineers spend most of their time doing complex mathematical calculations.

3. Engineering would be a highly interesting profession for me.

4. A problem with engineering is that engineers seldom get to do anything practical.

*5. Engineers deal primarily with theory.

6. Engineers spend relatively little time dealing with other people.

7. Engineers spend most of their time working in offices.

8. Engineers spend most of their time working with computers.

9. Engineers seldom get involved in business decisions.

10. Engineers have little need for knowledge about environmental issues.

11. Engineers have little need for knowledge about economics.

*12. Engineers have little need to deal with questions about behavior that is morally right or

wrong.

13. Engineers have little need for knowledge about political matters.

14. To be a good engineer requires an IQ in the genius range.

15. Engineering is a poor career choice because job availability is dependent on defense

spending.

*16. Engineers need a great deal of inborn aptitude for science and mathematics.

17. Most engineers have very narrow outside interest.

18. Engineering is important to future US economic success in the world.

*19. Engineers typically have very little common sense.

20. A career in engineering would be financially rewarding.

21. Most of the skills learned in engineering would be useful in everyday life.

*22. Engineers are not typically people who are fun to be around.

*23. Engineers do not tend to be appreciative of the arts.

*24. Engineers are frequently those individuals who were regarded as ―nerds‖ in high school.

25. If I had to do it over again, I would consider a career in engineering.

Key:

1=Very Strongly Agree; 2=Strongly Agree; 3=Agree; 4=Disagree;

5=Strongly Disagree; 6=Very Strongly Disagree

*Negative questions—lower scores indicate a positive attitude

Exit Project Survey

This exit survey is to capture your experiences with the "screencast exercises" you completed

this semester. Please answer the questions according to how you feel. Your responses will not

impact your course grade. They will be used to improve the quality of the future exercises in this

course.

1. Have you installed NX on your personal computer?

2. Did installing NX on your computer improve your learning?

Page 26.737.16

3. Did the screencast exercises help you learn the NX software?

4. Did the screencast exercises help you learn the engineering drawing and modeling?

5. Did commenting to others' screencast videos help your learning of modeling techniques?

6. Did reading your group members' comments on your screencast videos help your learning of

modeling techniques?

7. Was the Ecourses platform easy to use?

8. Was the Ecourses platform effective for your learning in CAD?

9. What did you like the most with the screencast exercises?

10. What challenges or difficulties did you have in the screencast exercises?

11. What did you learn as you generate the screencast tutorials?

12. What did you learn from your peers' "screencast tutorials"?

13. What are your recommendations to improve the screencast exercises for future students?

Key to Questions 2 through 8: a lot, a little, not at all

Page 26.737.17